Support for cameras widespread

Published
7:00 pm EST, Tuesday, December 19, 2006

By AMANDA PINTO

apinto@thestamfordtimes.com

STAMFORD -- An expanded camera surveillance program that representatives have said unfairly targets minority neighborhoods saw support from many residents who gathered at a public hearing Tuesday night.

Of those who spoke in favor of the cameras, which would be placed in areas based on crime and homeland security needs, many were leaders in predominantly black communities.

Rev. Tommie Jackson, pastor at Faith Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church, said his support of cameras might at first seem odd coming from a man of color.

Jackson, who is black, said the cameras could serve as a needed deterrent against the gun violence that has often plagued the city.

"If there had been cameras [last January] on Stillwater, Flanegaine Joseph might be alive today," Jackson said of the nineteen-year old man shot and killed during a gang-related shooting.

Rev. Robert Perry, pastor at the Union Baptist Church of Stamford, said the city's emergence as a financial center -- the home to national headquarters for companies like the Royal Bank of Scotland -- indicates a need for increased homeland security measures.

The city could be made safer by installing surveillance cameras, said Perry, who is black.

"It's not a racial question, it's a question of survival because we are all at stake," he said.

Several supporters mentioned the cameras as a necessity due to a recent spike in violent crime, youth violence, and the October incident in which a woman was sexually assaulted at gunpoint inside the Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa parking garage. Gary Fricker was identified as the suspect in the assault with the help of hotel security cameras.

The camera ordinance, though, was not without opposition. Of the seventeen people who spoke at the hearing, six strongly opposed the use of video surveillance as a tool in fighting crime.

Sheila Barney, who represented the South End Neighborhood Revitalization Zone, said she was concerned cameras would facilitate abuse by police, and that they would be used as a substitute for police presence.

"Through teamwork, not cameras, residents and the police can work together and the situation would improve in the community," said Barney, who is black.

Marvin Matthews, who lives in the West Side, said the city's understaffed police department -- which currently has around 280 officers available for duty -- simply does not have the manpower to be in every neighborhood where they are needed.

"We have what, 300 police officers?" said Matthews, who is black, "They can't be everywhere. This is not a town anymore, it's a city."

Several people who spoke out against the cameras cited an increase in police power that could breed racial profiling, discrimination, and voyeurism.

Patricia Kane, of High Ridge Road, was one of a handful of speakers who discussed "big brother" and citizens' "eroding" right to privacy.

The Board of Representatives hesitated to pass the ordinance allowing for traffic monitoring cameras in 1999, because at the time it feared the cameras could soon be used for a larger, more intrusive, purpose, said Kane, who is white.

"People felt it would be the camel's nose under the tent and at some point we'd be back here looking for legislation, looking into expanding camera use and here we are," she said.

Kane also said the cameras are being touted as a quick fix to a deeply rooted problem.

"No one wants crime but I don't hear talk about gun control, I don't hear talk about a failed war on drugs ... instead lets just put a camera up and declare victory," she said.

Others, like Jimmie Jones Jr., a pastor at the United House of Prayer, differed.

Jones, who is black, said cameras would help those in his community feel safer.

Members of his congregation often urged him to open church doors so that they could take refuge from violence in the streets, he said.

"There were children and parents...hiding in bushes, trying to get in the door of the church to hide from stray bullets," Jones said.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, members of the Public Safety & Health Committee met to review a new draft of the ordinance, and vote on its adoption.

Despite the mostly positive tone of public comment, the vote nearly didn't happen.

Rep. Philip Berns motioned that a decision be deterred until more information on other city's camera usage could be collected -- camera programs in Mt. Vernon and White Plains failed, he said.

Others disagreed, noting police research, and general public approval of the ordinance. "We heard very favorable discussion from prominent members of the community," said Joseph Coppola [R-15], citing the several clergymen who spoke in support of surveillance. "For us to even consider tabling this is just ridiculous."

Berns' motion to defer the decision failed by one vote.

The committee tweaked language within the ordinance partly based on suggested changes approved by the board's Legislative & Rules Committee at a previous meeting.

Most notably, the committee decided to eliminate a paragraph stating that cameras would be placed near all public housing complexes, day cares and schools, because many felt the statement was "inherently discriminatory."

Cameras may be placed in areas where there is documented crime, which could include the aforementioned facilities, board members said.

The price of the operation, as well as a manual of use which would determine many sticking points such as who would monitor the cameras and when, is yet to be determined.